nc-mcp-server

delete_submission

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a specific form submission using its numeric form ID and submission ID. Get confirmation of the removed entry.

Instructions

Delete a single submission.

Args: form_id: Numeric form id. submission_id: Numeric submission id.

Returns: Confirmation with the deleted id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "form_id": "<form_id>",
      "submission_id": "<submission_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_submission"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`form_id`	Yes
`submission_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. The description adds a return value note ('Confirmation with the deleted id'), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, cascades, or requires special permissions. With annotations covering the destructive/idempotent profile, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action. The Args/Returns structure is scannable and every sentence earns its place. Minor formatting overhead from the docstring style, but no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter delete with an output schema and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is mostly complete. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., form ownership) and doesn't clarify the difference from delete_all_submissions, but the operation is simple enough that an agent can likely invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add minimal semantics by labeling form_id as 'Numeric form id' and submission_id as 'Numeric submission id', but this mostly restates the schema's integer type. It doesn't explain how to obtain these IDs or any constraints beyond being numeric.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Delete a single submission' with a specific verb and resource, and the parameters form_id and submission_id identify the target. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_all_submissions and update_submission by specifying 'single submission'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by naming the required parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_all_submissions or update_submission. The context is clear enough for a straightforward delete operation, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server